ABSTRACT
Although the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) logo epitomizes a “one world” concept, the dichotomy of a First World-Third World divide, conjured from an Eighteenth Century Industrial Revolution ethos of “haves” and “have nots,” remains. Whatever politically correct term is used, this divide is a central theme in international relations generally, and is perpetuated in the fi eld of ergonomics which realistically recognizes the dichotomy between industrially advanced countries (IACs) and industrially developing countries (IDCs). The former include the more affl uent-and technology-driven regions, while the latter incorporate the less developed, poorer nations of the world, which are manually driven, and which arguably make up roughly three quarters of the world’s working population. Recent World Bank fi gures indicate that 75% of sub-Saharan Africa and South Central Asia live on less than US$ 2 per day. Scott and Charteris (2004) have enumerated the broad characteristics shared by IDCs: low standards of living, limited education, high rates of population growth, high levels of unemployment, signifi cant dependence on subsistence agriculture, low productivity and vulnerability in international relations; a package which these authors argue is synonymous with “deprivation dulling aspiration.” In other words, many individuals in these countries are forced to focus on day-to-day survival, and are not able to plan for the future. Hence, IDCs tend to be the countries in debt and unable to get out of debt, and are therefore locked into negative economic scenarios. Despite the current concept of globalization, in a world united by advanced technology the “Digital Age” is
instrumental in actually widening the disparity between IACs and IDCs, and ergonomics has a heavy responsibility to contribute toward stemming this growing gap, and to unify the drive to enhance the quality of life worldwide (Scott and Charteris, 2004).
